As you enter the Gila National Forest, about an hour's drive north of Deming,
you may see a sign proclaiming that is is the "land of many uses."
That concept has consequentially made it the land of many arguments. The Gila,
like most national forests, is a big place with a lot of things which various
people want. The conflict in those wants plays out somewhat in all public lands
including the Bureau of Land Management lands in Luna County, but the national
forests seem to draw the focus. This may be because national forests are not
simply government land. They have been specifically identified by the public
as natural treasures to be preserved and thus are held to a higher standard
by the public, similar to national parks.

This is the final column of three about the Diamond Bar, a national forest
allotment about one hundred miles north of Deming, which is as much a symbol
of the debate over national forests in the Southwest as the spotted owl was
in the Northwest. The Diamond Bar is 145,000 acres of beautiful pristine (or
formerly pristine, depending on your viewpoint) forest wilderness. The first
permit for cattle grazing on the Diamond Bar was issued in 1907. Since 1996,
the allotment has been in litigation most of the time, with the former permit
holders claiming they do not need a permit since they have a historic right
to graze cattle there, whereas the Federal Government holds it has the right
to forbid or allow grazing as it pleases on public land. It recently rounded
up the cattle of the Laneys, the former permit holder, claiming they were trespassing
since the Laneys do not have a current permit. That is the short version. If
you want further detail, see Desert Sage for March 31 and April 14.

There are two basic questions in the wider debate: what are national forest
for, and how do we care for one? The first goes so deep that many of the viewpoints
come from basic assumptions. Many generations of ranchers in national forest
areas have assumed that cattle grazing is the obvious normal use of the land.
The established nature of this enterprise is concrete enough to affect ranch
property values and to cause banks to lend money based on the permit's value.
Some allotments have been grazed for longer than the entire time the Gila National
Forest has existed. Since the rancher has usually been the only visible human
enterprise on the land, the assumption that it is the rancher's land is an easy
one over time, especially since when he bought the small "base property"
of private land required to hold a permit, that property included the value
of the permit in the price, and it is the rancher, not the Feds, making the
payments on the bank loan.

Increasingly, others want a say in the use of national forests. Most do not
live here, but assume a responsibility to ensure a portion of America stays
wild and undeveloped. If they see any role for humans in the forests at all
beyond guarding their preservation, it is perhaps ecotourism with as few marks
from the presence of our species as possible. Clearly, the land of many uses
is in for an argument. Even among those who see a role for cattle, some think
the forest has been badly overgrazed in far too many places and needs a much
lower number of cattle around.

The Laney approach of direct challenge on the ground is not a solution. The
Federal Government has clearly been given the legal stewardship of the forests
by the courts. While the Forest Service has not been aggressive to assert itself,
the Diamond Bar case proves that it will when it has to.

Today it is also carefully monitored by environmental organizations which have
also proven that they are not shy to go to court to push the Forest Service
into action if necessary. ABut the environmentalists are not satisfied with
the present state of things either.

Cutting back the number of cattle seems initially like a reasonable compromise.
The Forest Service in fact has already done that to some extent. But the compromise
bumps immediately into another reality. The ranching business is as likely to
fade away as to be shot out of the saddle by environmentalists. The globalization
of the economy means that beef can be produced cheaper overseas, despite the
subsidy given by the very low cost of permits. Few ranchers make a living solely
by raising cattle. Other employment or savings are necessary to make up the
shortfalls. Cutting back on the number of cattle allowed on an acreage simply
worsens the economics.

Some creative folds have come forward with a solution. The National Public
Lands Grazing Campaign proposes a buy-out of the permittees. In the words of
Campaign Director, Andy Kerr, the buy-out "acknowledges the property interest
which the rancher has in the permit through its value in the base property.
It would be a voluntary buy-out which would pay $175 per animal unit (i.e. cow
and calf) per month of grazing in the year, in return for surrendering the permit
to graze permanently." For example, if a permittee had 100 head of cattle
and grazed them ten months of the year (because most pasture can't be used all
year long), he would have a buy out of $175,000 ($175 x 100 x 10 = $175,000).
The Federal Government would save money long-term, since the cost of administering
the grazing program far exceeds the revenue it brings in, so the government
benefits when a permit is discontinued.

This idea is presently before Congress (HR 3324, with a smaller proposed pilot
project in Arizona, HR 3337). An appropriation of $100 million is suggested.
In some ways, it is like an employment buy-out where an employee is offered
a lump sum of money to leave. These often must be reviewed carefully to see
if the employee will really be ahead by accepting. HR3324 is closer to a no-brainer.
Given the shaky economic state of cattle ranching and the generous price of
an animal unit, most permittees would probably be well advised to take the money.

Economics is not, of course, the whole story. Many ranch for the lifestyle
rather than the money. However, a lot or ranchers might see the benefit in such
a buy-out. It is a win for the rancher, at least economically. It is a win for
the government, which saves money in the long run. It is a win for the land
which gets a well deserved rest and chance to recover. It is a win for the environmentalists
who see their advocacy for the land and its wild inhabitants succeed. Local
communities do not lose, since the increasingly marginal local benefits of the
cattle industry, due to its squeezed economics, can be replaced by things like
ecotourism. The $100 million would not begin to buy-out all permittees, so there
would be time to see the impact of the program before it becomes drastic. The
bill still has to make its way through the legislative process and be signed
by the President so we are not there yet. But is is certainly the best solution
in sight. I hope our Congressman sees it as worth supporting.